If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

2009-10 recap
It was a case of the cure being as bad as the disease. The Pacers labored through the 2009 offseason to make themselves a better defensive team, and on that level their season was a success -- Indy moved up from 19th to 15th in defensive efficiency despite several injuries to key defenders in the frontcourt.

Offensively, however, they tanked, and the two phenomena were related. In free agency, Indiana had invested in defenders with limited offensive games, such as Earl Watson and Dahntay Jones, and drafted Tyler Hansbrough to shore up the frontcourt rather than nabbing one of the several productive point guards from last season's rookie class.

Things might have worked out better if Danny Granger hadn't missed 20 games, or if T.J. Ford hadn't gone off the rails (again), or if Mike Dunleavy had made a more robust comeback from his knee troubles. But none of those things happened, and the net result was a Pacers offense in shambles.

Indiana plummeted to 26th in offensive efficiency after finishing in the middle of the pack a year earlier, a performance that directly led the Pacers to once again fall just shy of the playoffs. That continues a frustrating trend of near misses: In the past three seasons they've finished ninth, ninth, and 10th in the Eastern Conference.

Despite their scoring woes, the Pacers played very fast. In fact, they operated as a mini-Golden State in several respects, finishing either second from the top or second from the bottom in several categories in which the Warriors represented the extreme.

Most obviously, the Pacers played the league's second-fastest pace, which isn't necessarily what you'd expect from a team that started plodders Roy Hibbert and Troy Murphy in the frontcourt.

Considering the production of that duo, another unexpected issue was the Pacers' lousy performance on the offensive glass. Golden State was the league's worst offensive rebounding team, but the Pacers pushed them for the honor, grabbing only 21.6 percent of their misses.

Off. Rebound Rate: 2009-10's Worst
Team Off. reb. rate
Golden State 20.9
Indiana 21.6
Boston 22.8
New York 23.5
Dallas 24.3
NBA average 26.3
There were a lot of misses to grab, too: The Pacers landed 28th in field goal percentage at 44.3 percent. This was partly due to their preference for shooting 3s. Indiana ranked third in the league in 3-point attempts per field goal attempt but made only 34.8 percent of them; alas, this was still a better proposition than their 24th-ranked mark on 2-pointers (47.9 percent).

The Pacers' other problem was a shot distribution that was far too democratic given the limited number of talented offensive players. Granger led the team in usage rate, as one would expect, but how could Jones and Luther Head have more touches per minute than Murphy? The sharing spirit extended everywhere except to puzzling second-year pro Brandon Rush, who finished last in usage rate despite appearing more skilled than several of his more assertive teammates. Somehow he led the team in minutes despite a 9.61 player efficiency rating.

There was good news if you looked hard enough for it -- Hibbert emerged as a solid post scorer, and second-round pick A.J. Price looks like a keeper -- but in the big picture, Indy's offensive performance was a crushing disappointment.

At the other end, the Pacers generated the league's fifth-best defense against 2-point field goals (47.6 percent), but that was the only thing they did well. In particular, they fouled with abandon. Indiana's .341 opponent free throw attempts per field goal attempt ranked 27th. (Golden State was 26th, natch.) All the frontcourt players except Murphy had monumental foul rates, with Hibbert's high rate being particularly vexing because it often took his scoring off the floor. On the perimeter, Jones also fouled far too often, leading to his ceding the defensive stopper role to Rush.

Indiana's other big weakness was defensive rebounding. Although the Pacers weren't as bad as they were on the offensive glass, they ranked only 22nd at 73 percent. Combined with the poor offensive rebounding numbers, Indiana's 47.1 rebound rate ranked 29th in the NBA. Only Golden State, of course, was worse.

This makes the offseason trade of Murphy a particular concern. He led the team in defensive rebound rate by a wide margin, nearly doubling the stat of the next-closest rotation player. Indiana has to hope Hansbrough and Josh McRoberts can ramp up their rebounding numbers enough to offset Murphy's departure; otherwise, the Pacers will face a deluge of second shots.

However, the Pacers' biggest problem is a structural one: The organization finds itself handcuffed as it tries to repair the roster, because the team is near the luxury-tax limit and doesn't have the financial wherewithal to go beyond it. Indiana has spent the past two seasons playing a waiting game, signing second-tier players to inexpensive, short-term contracts until it slips under the cap in 2011 and can undertake more aggressive measures. Watson worked out halfway decently; Dahntay Jones, Solomon Jones and Luther Head did not.

The team's only playable card, Murphy's expiring contract, has already been used (see below). Indiana is desperate to move T.J. Ford's $8.5 million expiring deal as well, but it faces slim odds of getting anything of value out of it. Should Dunleavy's knee prove to be at full strength, he'll represent the only other marketable commodity who isn't in the team's long-term plans.

Offseason Moves
Suffice it to say it was a fairly quiet summer in the Corn Belt. The entire management team -- president Larry Bird, general manager David Morway and coach Jim O'Brien -- are on the final years of their contracts, which could create some activity late in the season if the Pacers' lottery streak looks headed toward five. For now, it's all quiet on this front.

They drafted Paul George, Lance Stephenson and Magnum Rolle. I really like the George pick, as I think he was one of the draft's more underrated players and should thrive in the Pacers' space-it-and-shoot-it system. I understand the concern that he's a bit redundant with Granger, but each is big enough that both can play at the same time against many opponents. I suspect that pairing will be much more troublesome for opponents to guard than the other way around.

Stephenson was a defensible pick basketball-wise and a god-awful one PR-wise. Indiana had just finished fumigating its roster of all the players with rap sheets, an important consideration in the straitlaced Hoosier State, but Stephenson had considerable baggage in college and was arrested during the summer for domestic violence. He already had signed a contract by that point, but it's possible Indy will cut its losses and tell him to stay away, as it did with Jamaal Tinsley two years ago.

Rolle doesn't have a contract but will be at training camp, and given that he's a 6-foot-11 power forward and the team desperately needs help at the 4, he probably will make the squad.

Let Earl Watson go. Traded Troy Murphy to New Jersey, received Darren Collison and James Posey from New Orleans in four-team deal. Price's development made Watson expendable as the backup point guard, while Indiana gave itself a major upgrade in the starting group by getting Collison from New Orleans for Murphy.

Effectively, Collison is the first free agent Indiana acquired with its upcoming 2011 cap space; it just made the move a year early. New Orleans stuck the Pacers with Posey's toxic contract, taking $7 million in 2011 cap room, and that's why they were willing to cut the deal for such a promising young player.

Collison has a bit of T.J. Ford in his game -- a small, shoot-first speedster -- but he's also a good defensive player. Although he's not a high-assist player, he's much more in tune than Ford with the general idea that the other four guys should get the ball once in a while.

That makes this deal a win for the Pacers long term, but in 2010-11 it may not pay great dividends -- Indiana had to open a giant hole at power forward to close the one at point guard. Hansbrough and Josh McRoberts will get first crack at closing it.

Biggest Strength: "First shot" defense
I have little faith in Indiana's ability to retrieve the ball when it forces a miss, but the Pacers should be able to force quite a few misses. The Pacers were pretty good in this respect a year ago, ranking fifth in 2-point field goal defense, and all the indicators are that they'll be better this time around.

For starters, the addition of Collison is a major plus. Although he's very small, he's also a good defender with great fundamentals, and his ability to stop the ball at the point of attack should make life easier for the Pacers' frontcourt. Of course, the departed Watson also was good in this respect, but Ford wasn't and played a big chunk of Indiana's point guard minutes last season.

On the wing, both Rush and Jones are solid defenders, and while Dunleavy isn't great one-on-one, he's an excellent team defender. Granger is a decent defensive player, too, and George's length should make him somewhat competent while he cuts his teeth as a rookie.

Up front, however, is where the greatest upgrade is likely. Murphy was a great rebounder, but didn't do diddly before the ball went up. Hansbrough, presuming he can overcome a baffling inner-ear infection, is a far more active defensive player and will be considerably better against pick-and-rolls. Even Granger and McRoberts are likely to be upgrades.

At center, Hibbert is learning how to use his size to affect shots in the paint, and his sharp drop in fouls last season was a good omen. Additionally, anything the Pacers get from Foster -- a very good defensive player when healthy -- will be a huge improvement on the zilch Solomon Jones gave them a season ago.

Biggest Weakness: Rebounding
There's no way to sugarcoat this -- the Pacers are going to get absolutely pounded on the glass. Even if Hansbrough turns out to be a monster, they'll linger among the league's bottom two or three teams in rebound rate; if he does anything short of that, they'll challenge Phoenix for dead last.

Pacers' rebound rates, 2009-10
Player Reb. rate
Murphy 17.2
Hansbrough 14.7
McRoberts 13.2
Hibbert 12.4
S. Jones 11.6
Posey 11.2*
Dunleavy 8.7
Granger 8.2
*Played for New Orleans
The chart shows the math: Last season Murphy was far and away the team's best rebounder, and he isn't around anymore. Hansbrough and McRoberts, the two probable replacements, grab about 4 percent fewer rebounds between them. That's a large difference, but it becomes a staggering gap if the Pacers go small and use somebody like Posey or Granger as the power forward.

Murphy played nearly 60 percent of the Pacers' minutes last season; the resulting decline in the team's rebound rate would be on the order of 2½ percent if all his minutes went to Hansbrough/McRoberts, and considerably more if they went to smaller players.

Indiana's 71.4 rebound rate a year ago was 29th in the league; Golden State, at 68.0, was the worst rebounding team in history last season. Take off 2½ percent to 3 percent based on the Murphy calculation above, and my back-of-the-envelope numbers project Indy's rebound rate to land between 68.5 and 69.0, depending on how often the Pacers play small. That wouldn't quite make them the worst rebounding team in history, but it would almost certainly make them the worst in the league.

The one possible antidote would be a return to health from Foster. He missed nearly all of last season to undergo back surgery and has been plagued by health problems for the past several years, but when he plays he's a freak on the glass. Just 15-20 minutes a night from him as a backup center would provide considerable improvement.

Outlook
Stop me if you've heard this before. The Pacers, with one star player (Granger), one second-tier star (Collison this time, replacing Murphy and Dunleavy from past seasons) and a bunch of half-good players will be good enough to compete for a playoff spot … but not good enough to actually earn one.

The upgrade at point guard should be roughly offset by a decline in production at power forward -- I talked a lot about Murphy's rebounding, but he's also a whale of an outside shooter, so the trade may not improve the Pacers' offense much. Meanwhile, the general mediocrity of the supporting crew should mostly offset the offensive output of the Collison-Granger-Hibbert core.

The bar for making the playoffs in the East hasn't been set real high, so with a comeback season by Foster and good health from the others, Indy may squeeze through. That's especially true if the Pacers cash in their expiring contracts early to try to upgrade the roster at the trade deadline. More likely, however, they'll end up in an all-too-familiar position for the fifth straight season.

The Following User Says Thank You to pacer4ever For This Useful Post:

Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

I just don't think his model is capable of recognizing the benefits that a capable PG like Collison brings to the team at both ends of the court.

I just don't think his model is capable of recognizing that Murphy's stats were hollow, that his points and rebounds will be easily replaced, and that the round table in my office that my laptop sits on would be an upgrade over Murphy defensively.

I just don't think his model is capable of recognizing that our your players are maturing and should be less inconsistent. I think his model doesn't recognize that a Collison-Granger-Hibbert core will be very competitive in the East (except of course for Miami.)

I do agree with his comments regarding a George-Granger forward tandem. That's a good observation on his part, which is certainly rare for Hollinger. If George develops as expected, that could be a really strong part of our lineup... NEXT season. Not sure its reasonable to expect it right away given how many times we've heard the word "raw" associated with George.

Right now, I think this will be a 0.500 team - assuming the "Big 3" are healthy and on the court together for 70+ games. And you all know that's a lot better than I've been predicting for the past 3, 4 seasons.

Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

Hollinger fails to recognize the positive impact of the fact that the Pacers no longer have a "designated rebounder" in Murphy, and instead will rely on multiple players to both block out and rebound, therefore the team rebounding should improve despite less likelihood of any single player achieving the rate of rebounding posted by Murphy. The Pacers might actually achieve average status within the league both from a rebounding and defensive standpoint that meets both the statistical and intuitive eyeball tests just because Murphy is no longer with the franchise, let alone all of the improvements that Roy will have made.

Shoot, if half of what O'B said in todays media day coverage comes to pass with respect to how Hibbert and McRoberts are going to be utilized, coupled with a better Dunleavy being the catalyst to having a motion based offense, the Pacers are a no-brainer pick for 7th or 8th seed in the East in my opinion, and if other positive things occur as well, the Pacers could surprise all but the most optimistic of fans and actually end up in the mid to upper 40's in the W column. O'Brien would almost be vindicated with respect to his coaching competency if that were to occur, even in my heavily critical view.

But, that would require that there is follow through on the indicated changes that are committed to long term by the coaching staff, and anything beyond cautious optimism regarding that is difficult for me to muster.

Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

I do agree with his comments regarding a George-Granger forward tandem. That's a good observation on his part, which is certainly rare for Hollinger.

Wherever he uses the term 'power forward' he predicts serious failure on the Pacers. But wherever he recognizes that a team doesn't have to have a power forward -- that it can play two balanced forwards -- maybe the Pacers will do OK:

Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

"There were a lot of misses to grab, too: The Pacers landed 28th in field goal percentage at 44.3 percent. This was partly due to their preference for shooting 3s. Indiana ranked third in the league in 3-point attempts per field goal attempt but made only 34.8 percent of them; alas, this was still a better proposition than their 24th-ranked mark on 2-pointers (47.9 percent)."

I hadn't seen this stat before that shows the Pacers third in the league in 3-point attempts per field goal attempt. This seems like a far more telling stat about the Pacers' shot selection and preference for 3s than the stat I've seen here before that has the Pacers in the middle of the pack in the number of 3-point shots attempted.

Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

This is good, fair analysis. I think our optimism hinges a lot on Roy's development. If he's the same as last year, I don't think we make the playoffs. If he makes a leap to a night in night out command a double team, control the paint center, the Pacers should make a jump too.

Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

I guess averaging nearly 10 assists per game when he was starting for New Orleans wasn't enough.

I think Hollinger uses a sort of assist/usage metric, where "usage" refers to a play that ends with an action by that player, e.g. assist, TO, FGA, fouled, etc. Collison handles the ball a lot so by that metric, he isn't a high assist player, maybe? I could be off base here.

Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

I'm actually afraid that he might be correct. I'm hoping we can still pull off one more trade in order to get a starter-caliber PF. I really feel that if we can get a solid PF, we will be much better going into the season.

Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

This thread just shows the vitriol for anything John Hollinger writes. I thought that was a really fair assessment of the team, I honestly share a lot of the same concerns. I think we will win more than 34 games (probably around 38), but I thought it was a good read.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cdash For This Useful Post:

Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

I think because their young and more talanted, this group will be competitive...but they'll also be inconsistent. I think they could win anywhere from 34-44 games. I hope they make the playoffs, that experience will be good for the core.

Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

A wonderful analysis. Hollinger is spot on. Haters gonna hate but Murphy is a good rebounder and we will miss his boards, I predict our overall rebounding goes down as does our rebound rate this year- barring getting another rebounder of Murphy's level. (9+ boards per game)

He brings up a good point that I didn't think about- Murphy is probably a very efficient scorer and he didn't require a lot of touches. Hibbert, Granger, and Collison all need the ball.

I think I will revise my predictions and say that we will be a 34 win team this year, just like Hollinger states.

Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

I just don't think his model is capable of recognizing the benefits that a capable PG like Collison brings to the team at both ends of the court.

I just don't think his model is capable of recognizing that Murphy's stats were hollow, that his points and rebounds will be easily replaced, and that the round table in my office that my laptop sits on would be an upgrade over Murphy defensively.

The Following User Says Thank You to Kegboy For This Useful Post:

Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

He makes some valid points. He also shows a lot of ignorance.

For example: "....another unexpected issue was the Pacers' lousy performance on the offensive glass." Why would this be unexpected when both the PF and SF are always 30 feet from the basket?...and rebounding is the opposite of your Center's greatest strengths?

Also, the Murphy love is ridiculous. You don't need to even look at his horrible plus/minus. All you need to do is look at our W/L with and without him the last two years. Better yet, just watch the game.

I think I'll take my chances without our double-double machine of a PF. Let's count the wins in May...

Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

Also, the Murphy love is ridiculous. You don't need to even look at his horrible plus/minus. All you need to do is look at our W/L with and without him the last two years. Better yet, just watch the game.